Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection

juliareda.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 125 posts

Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection

#51

Post by nezzle »

dalbasal wrote: post #10

This feels like a fight we're going to lose eventually. Proposals come up.. most fail. I admire those responsible for putting up resistance. But.. some succeed. Others partially succeed. Limited to stopping pedophilia, piracy, nazis... Those are bridgeheads. The direction is monodirectional. Eighty six proposals can fail, but if the eighty seventh succeeds that's just as good. There is no going back. Win, good. Lose,…

Every battle they win their battle chest grows. Every battle we win we get more complacent and tired of it all.

Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection

#52

Post by nezzle »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #44
dalbasal wrote: post #10

This feels like a fight we're going to lose eventually. Proposals come up.. most fail. I admire those responsible for putting up resistance. But.. some succeed. Others partially succeed. Limited to stopping pedophilia, piracy, nazis... Those are bridgeheads. The direction is monodirectional. Eighty six proposals can fail, but if the eighty seventh succeeds that's just as good. There is no going back. Win, good. Lose,…

> The direction is monodirectional. Eighty six proposals can fail, but ... This kind of thing is true in every domain of legislation and regulation. Indeed wherever officials have wielded power since the before the building of Babylon. And yet the world has not, in the large scale, been on a march towards ever more tyranny. How is that? I don't fully understand the process by which freedom has increased in most count…

Freedom exists because, for a while anyway, freedom was more effective at increasing the wealth and power of nations.

This video has a great outline: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/rules-for-rulers

Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection

#53

Post by jopsen »

snowpanda wrote: post #31
sassenach wrote: post #9

I think this is the relevant paragraph in the document (page 27 in http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/imco/inag/... ) linked from the article: "3. Competent authorities shall have at least the following enforcement powers: (e) where no other effective means are available to bring about the cessation or the prohibition of the infringement including by requesting a third party or other public authority t…

>and allow the competent authority concerned to register it It's actually worse than 'blocking', they get control of the domain.

In some way the aim here might to counter cyber squatting...

Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection

#54

Post by jopsen »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #37
pilsetnieks wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The direction is monodirectional The obvious tautology aside, I wouldn't agree with this in case of the EU (the US, probably.) To me, the EU feels more like two steps forward, one step back - this being the step back but, for example, the GDPR being the two steps (or leaps) forward. In any case, this regulation seems more misguided rather than malicious. It's targeting real problems that have to be tackled but it d…

>In any case, this regulation seems more misguided rather than malicious. Intent isn't relevant at all - only result.

And relevant in how it'll be interpreted by the courts.

Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection

#55

Post by Kequc »

This has been going on for a while but all the way down to the web host it seems like companies are on board with this stuff. I've found that terms of service for web hosting companies generally includes a clause that specifies one of your users harassing another one of your users.

As if you can prevent that as a website owner. Especially since such a thing would be totally subjective to judge. What it means is they are purposefully giving themselves any reason at all to shut off your site.

I asked one of them about it, I got directed to their legal department. I asked the legal department about the clause and they told me to look for hosting elsewhere given what they assumed was the way in which I conduct myself on the internet.

There is no legal reason. They just want to control information.

Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection

#56

Post by jopsen »

mattmanser wrote: post #35
sassenach wrote: post #9

I think this is the relevant paragraph in the document (page 27 in http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/commissions/imco/inag/... ) linked from the article: "3. Competent authorities shall have at least the following enforcement powers: (e) where no other effective means are available to bring about the cessation or the prohibition of the infringement including by requesting a third party or other public authority t…

"risk of serious harm to the collective interests of consumers" What a weaselly term. Bet they spent months trying to come up with something that didn't sound ridiculously biased/anti-consumer and that's the best they came up with. So obviously corrupt.

> So obviously corrupt

Sources please.

The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites.

From what I could see Julia Reda (MEP - German Pirate) wasn't unhappy about the intents of this legislation. Merely concerned about:

A) Website blocking without judicial oversight

B) Existence of website blocking infrastructure

C) Inability to force compensations

D) No restitution of illicit profits

I suspect (B) is already a reality, but yeah, I'm no fan. I agree that (A) is concerning, but wording suggests this can ONLY be applied when "no other effective means" are available. As I understand it that implies it can only be used when the owner can be found, sued or prosecuted by other means.

I read that as this applies to faceless scam sites without an address or anyone willing to take responsibility.

As for (C) and (D) I would love to see more of that. But the idea in her blog post that illicit profits (B) could be used for found consumer protection agencies is not something I agree with.

Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection

#57

Post by sprafa »

leggomylibro wrote: post #36
mattmanser wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"risk of serious harm to the collective interests of consumers" What a weaselly term. Bet they spent months trying to come up with something that didn't sound ridiculously biased/anti-consumer and that's the best they came up with. So obviously corrupt.

Let me translate: "business which we want to cultivate a protected local equivalent of" China figured it out; the EU is just playing catch-up.

Jesus, there's no comparison there. Really, you think the EU is planning to build a firewall?

Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection

#58

Post by microcolonel »

jopsen wrote: post #56
mattmanser wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"risk of serious harm to the collective interests of consumers" What a weaselly term. Bet they spent months trying to come up with something that didn't sound ridiculously biased/anti-consumer and that's the best they came up with. So obviously corrupt.

> So obviously corrupt Sources please. The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites. From what I could see Julia Reda (MEP - German Pirate) wasn't unhappy about the intents of this legislation. Merely concerned about: A) Website blocking without judicial oversight B) Existence of website blocking infrastructure C) Inability to force…

> The EU isn't perfect... But this sounds a lot like an attempt to give consumer protection agencies the powers to block scam sites.

It sounds more like an attempt to give somebody powers to block potentially copyright infringing sites, under the pretense of consumer protection, through the roundabout justification that consumers "collectively" benefit from strict enforcement of copyright.

Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection

#59

Post by neximo64 »

emptyfile wrote: post #34

Consumer protection is a bad thing?

Only if it actually protects consumers instead of national interests.

In the EU 'consumer protection' is the guise of protecting suppliers. For example, protecting consumers from Buffalo Mozzarella means that only 4 regions of Italy may produce it (via the Protected designation of origin scheme) (it doesn't matter if the recipe/methods are correct). This way the consumer is 'protected' from being sold Buffalo Mozzarella from regions that can produce it cheaper.

This method seems to be a way to force compliance online. The EU is great but their digital initiatives are always examples of overreach. Last time it was those ridiculous cookie notices you see on websites notifying you that the website uses cookies.

Re: New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of consumer protection

#60

Post by nine_k »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #17
dalbasal wrote: post #10

This feels like a fight we're going to lose eventually. Proposals come up.. most fail. I admire those responsible for putting up resistance. But.. some succeed. Others partially succeed. Limited to stopping pedophilia, piracy, nazis... Those are bridgeheads. The direction is monodirectional. Eighty six proposals can fail, but if the eighty seventh succeeds that's just as good. There is no going back. Win, good. Lose,…

> The direction is monodirectional The obvious tautology aside, I wouldn't agree with this in case of the EU (the US, probably.) To me, the EU feels more like two steps forward, one step back - this being the step back but, for example, the GDPR being the two steps (or leaps) forward. In any case, this regulation seems more misguided rather than malicious. It's targeting real problems that have to be tackled but it d…

How would you narrow down such powers?
Post reply on HN